OF
T  E  REVL () U:                          I N:
SHOWING THE PERVERSION OF THEMI AND THE CONSEQUENT
FAXILURE OF THEIR ACCOMPLISHIMENT.
BY  J*  P. BLANCHARD.
BOSTON:
PRESS )OF DABIRELL AND MTOORE,
16 IDEVONSHIRE STrE.ET.
1.55.








PRINCIPLES OF THE REVOLUTION.
THE American Revolution is yet unaccomplished, or it is a
splendid failure.  It rose before the world on a basis of political
purity, undiscerned in the speculations of heathen philosophy,
or the vaunted intelligence of European civilization. The development of the truth, that all men have equal right to life,
to liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, broke on the anxious
sight of millions of the oppressed, as the harbinger of their re.
lease from the thraldom  of ages. We have come upon the day
when the mournful disappointment of all these hopes is no longer
doubtful. The despots of Europe, and the military chiefs of
South America, still wave their sceptres of steel over the most
enlightened portions of the globe; and when their struggling
vassals turn their eyes to our self-gratulating Republic, they
hear not amid the rattling chains of slavery, see not through
the smoke of our martial desolations, feel not in the nets of our
monopolizing legislation, and the cramps of our antiquated jurisprudence, the liberty and safety their ardent desires anticipated.
Our land is yet sought by the starving for food, by the impoverished for remunerated labor; but the El Dorado dream of freedom, prosperity, and equal rights, has vanished with the awakening of the age. The unseen leaders of conflicting parties now
hold in their grasp the potent ballot-box, from which popular
government was unwisely expected: departed patriotism has
left its name and its cloak to cover avidity for the spoils of offlee: republican economy has given place to excessive indirect




taxation, and profuse, ostentatious expenditure.  Our professions of peace and forbearance are falsified by our martial spirit
and rapacious hostile encroachments.
And in all this there is no degeneracy.  On the contrary, as
a people, in our individual and social relations, we are improved.
Since our Revolution, religion, literature, science, have spread
over our land their healing wings: extending commerce has bound
us to our race in a humanizing chain of brotherhood, and the newborn spirit of reform, searching through the dark caverns of moral
corruption, is bringing their hideous forms of evil into day, and
preparing to light up the flame of charity with their consuming
remains.  Those who look back to the birth of our nation, as
the Saturnian age of purity, cherish a misdirecting illusion.
Our revolutionary fathers saw but obscurely the forms of the liber.ty and justice their language proclaimed.  It is true, the Declaration of Independence held "' these truths to be self-evident; that,
all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Crea.
tor with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"; but the Constitutions professed to be formed on the basis of this declaration, and still
more the laws and actual practice under them, exhibit but little
departure from the usages of the mother land. There is still
the same unlimited power in the States-so far as not granted
to the Union to regulate every commercial and social relation
in private life; still the same authority in the voluminous and
perplexing decisions of courts; the same predominance given to
the domination of government, or the majority of the people,
over the interests and rights of individuals; still the same op.
pressive power in judicial officers; the same exclusive reliance
on physical force, and the menace of personal or pecuniary
punishment for the maintenance of order, and still the same
compulsion to civil and military service; and these ungranted
usurpations were deliberately re-enacted by our patriot fath.
ers, in the face of their " self-evident truths," with strangely
inconsistent blindness.  These  "' self-evident truths"  were
never understood, and the experiment of political liberty and
equal rights, so loudly announced, has never yet been made.
The source of this unhappy delusion, which still clouds the
minds of ouri greatest statesmen, is not difficult to discover.




The interpretation of the self-evident truths proclaimed, was
drawn from a heathen, and not firom a Christian criterion: the
anthority of Christianity is scarcely recognized in our Constitutions, and was perhaps but little contemplated by the framersl
the only revelation of principles by which the oppressive corruptions of the world can be dissolved, was utterly disregarded.
An infusion of some of the ordinances of Judaism, repealed by
Christ, was indeed mingled with the laws of some of the States;
but when our revolutionary patriots felt the injustice of tile
feudal maxims, under which they sunfered, and desired to throw
off these venerated oppressions from their shouiders, they looked
back to the fascinating republics of Greece and IRome, for
guidance to the security of their asserted rights.  This delusion
still continues; it pervades the public mind; for it is fostered
by the influence of our leading statesmen, brought up under the
dazzling impressions of classical tuition,
But these ancient republics had no true conception of politi-c
cal liberty; their ideas of it were only the abrogation of all prerogative from birth or fortune, and the participation of the people at large in the creation and maintenance of government.
The reservation of independent-right to the citizen; the exemption of the individual from all unnecessary rule of the community-the only conditions of true political freedom-were never
dreamed of.  The dignity of man, as such, and the comforts of
domestic and social relations, were alike sacrificed to public
policy: patriotism  was the paramount virtue; and the grandeur of the State was uphelcl by the submersion of the interests
of humanity.  That men were created'6 equal," was perceived;
but not that they had c  inalienable rights."  No! they were
closely cemented portions of the republican temple; passive
particles of the popular vortex which carried them unresistingly
along.  Plain is the misnomer to call this "' liberty:" the
avowed despotism  of hereditary sovereigns can never be more
rigorous, more irresponsible, more irresistible, than the overwhelming tyranny of ephemeral chiefs, sustained by an admiring
and deluded majority.  Surely the truth of this proposition can
no longer be disputed in this our self-lauded time and country:
we have mournful experience of this calamity; and yet its demonstrable origin is hidden from  our eyes,  X Vr  yet bali ve




that the institutions of our revolutionary fathers were the ne.plus ultra of wisdom;'and the evils inevitably consequent upon
them, which we endure, are but temporary perversions.
That all men are created equal, and endowed with inalienable
rights, are not self-evident propositions, for they have been ignored in all ages; and are yet unacknowledged by the greater
part of mankind.  in their true legitimate sense, they are yet
discerned but by few. Our fathers came to them by a reasoning forced upon them  by the circumstances of their case.
Smarting under wrongs imposed upon them  by the combined
aristocracy and hierarchy of the parent land,they sought a general principle, which should obliterate permanent political distinetions, founded on birth, rank, or affluence; and by the language
in which they declared this principle, they probably intended no
more than an assertion of the innate equality of all political
right among men; and this coinciding with the sentiments of
the republics of antiluity, the institutions they formed were
founded upon their example.  They were however providentially led to a language, which truly comprises a deeper, juster,
and more felicitous import; providentially, for the keen reforming spirit of the advancing age, discovering the unforeseen conformity of these alleged political axioms with the principles of
the Gospel, will mlake them the basis of a peaceful revolution,
far more radical and beneficent than that of our revolutionary
patriots; which shall throw off the heavier incubus they deemed
essential to government, as they threw off the lighter one imposed by the throne of Britain.
Had our patriot fathers gathered the truths they called " self:
evident," from the pages of the Neow Testament, interpreted
them by the instructions of Christ, and cherished them in his
spirit, the Constitutions they would have formed upon them
would have been much more worthy of our reverence and obedience. The accumulated corruptions of tyrannical ages would
have been shatterred to fragments, in the explosion they made
of the divine right of kings, priests and nobles. This error
was again providential, for the measure would have been premature; the age was not prepared for it.  To have caused a
political fabric to emerge at once from a chaos of prescriptive
impositions, cleansed from their stains and imbued with Chrisy,




tian justice, would have been an achievement too vast for human
wisdom; and its purity would have been invisible to eyes not
yet awakened from the torpor of servitude.  The time has perhaps now arrived when the true principles of Christian policy
should be laid open to the eyes of our counitrymen.
Political government is a necessarey evil.  That it is an evil
will be acknowledged by every clear-sighted philanthropist; that
it is a necessity, will be held by every statesman, who, contemplating the selfish and disorderly passions of many men, sees in
it the only refuge from  violence, injury and wrong.  That it;
has ever fully accomplislhed this, its professed object, will hardly
be asserted by any intelligent observer.  In view of its universal oppressions, such a one would not go far beyond the truth
who should assert that in every nation it has only transferred
the injury and wrong from  individual to governmental action;
for protection is everywhere given at the cost of liberty, and
often of right;  Eminent politicians hold that partial abrogation
of buman freedom is demanded for human safety; but a far
greater part is usually taken than is requisite for this purpose;
and this is ever inadequate, as the most vigorous governments do
not succeed in suppressing all thle,evils they are constituted to
remedy.
But in truth, even this principle is not sincerely acted upon.
In the formation of governments, the strength of the government, and not the safety of the citizen, has been the invariable
object of solicitude. It is true that in our several Constitutions,
provisions are made to protect individuals from illegal exercise
of power, in the administrators of the government, but none
whatever to shield them  from  the tyranny of the laws themselves; and scarcely any to avert the oppression of a barbarous
jurisdiction, originally formed to sustain the prerogatives of sovereigns, never assented to by the people, and yet having all the
force of law.  The legislation and jurisdiction of the United
States are indeed expressly limited, but those of the States are
only restricted by the grant to the general government; no
reservation of political power is madel in either to individual
citizens.
Obvious and undeniable as is this fact, still the cry by which
we delude ourselves and impose on foreign nations, is, that ours




is a government of the people; is sustained, regulated, and may
be changed by the people; and it is intended to be understood,
that this'b people " is a major'ity of persons in the nation acting
as individuals, but.n concert aCnd uniformity.   The circulmstance is overlooked, that wifth the diveirsit  of humnan sentimenl s, co suc1h accorance IC possible; ad ndo laws  could be
reade by ayly such supposed concerlt on unexpected subjects of
a legislation, which is not permitted to the people; for they are
only allow1ed to  leclt by vete the persons who are to frame and
execute the laws.  Even in the exercise of this power they are
not free; for, as if every citizen voted for the true representafive of his opinions, no naajority coul d be, found, and consequently no laws enactedi;  every citizen is iuder the necessity of
voting for the nomineet of his party leaders, whether preferred or
not, for the sake of u.nions.  Lxcept in some test issue of opposing parties, the voter cannot; know the opinion of his candidate, on many of the objects for which he will be called to legislate; nor canl these rapresenitatives know the views of but a
small portion of their constituents, on the laws they enact.  It
is probable that many of the laws snade by Congress would not
meet the full concurrence of but a small part of the people
throughout the country, if their opinions could be separately
and privately ascertained.  tt is a glaring fallacy to call this a
self-government of the people by representation.
if, howerer, our government were truly one of a majority of
the people by representation, it would still have failed to  give
security to the individual rights prefacing  the Declaration of
Independence; for the legishation of the majority thus supposed
to be reepresented, hCas no limits iraposed upon it in favor of individual:rights, or those of tx: the minoriRy who may dissent fronm
asuch legislation, in any measures they maay deem it expedient to
enact.  The democratic theory is that; the majority of voters
mnust have all rule; and when we consider that in all republican
countries this majorlty is necessarily led by a few, we perceive
that this democratic maxim is as fatal'to individual freedom, as
the autocracy of a despot.  Tihe common notion that a majority
may be safely trusted not to make or permnt any laws to oppress
themselves as individuals, supposes a higher degree of popular
intelligence and individual indenendence than anywhere exists;




9
and the history of all countries, anmid none more than our own,
fully disproves the fact.
Another consideration showing the failure of our republican
institutions to secure the rights declared in our Declaration of
Independence, is, that whatever may be the influence of the
popular mind in shaping the laws made by its supposed representatives, these laws do in fact form  but a minor part of the
authority by which the people are governed. The action of
legislation comes, for the most part, but indirectly and remotely on the people. Executive power indeed presses upon them,
in conformity to the laws; but only on extraordinary occasions;
and sometimes with a severity which the laws do not contemplate. In the regulation of individual concerns, which government has usurped, and wherever private rights are invaded, the
decision of all questions and the enforcement of all law rests
with the judiciary. This is the power which comes in perpetual
contact with the people, and which constitutes almost the whole
of the government to them. But this branch of the government has never been revolutionized.  No provision was made
by our fathers to limit judicial action to the Constitutions and
laws; and voluminous and perplexing as these laws often areas they cover but a small part of the judicial maxims considered
as'4 settled,"-in far the greater proportion of cases, individual
rights are determined and protected by what is termed "C common law " —on which there is no legislation. If this common
law is understood to mean a rational, sense of justice in every
intelligent mind, no better authority could be adduced for every
private judgment; but unhappily no other common law is discernible by our judges, than the decisions established in the
kingdom from which we seceded, which being overruled or influenced by regal authority, and designed chiefly for the security
of governmental power, are but little suited to the principles on
which our Revolution proceeded. We indeed exult in Magna
Charta, and the trial by jury, called the bulwarks of British
liberty; but whatever advance of freedom these regulations
may be on former royal supremacy, examination will show them
to be as far behind the principles of our Revolution.  While
therefore we boast of popular self-government, we are yet for
2




10
the greatest part of that government, still under the dominion
of a foreign sovereignty, which we have abjured and denounced.
In speaking of the in adequacy of the trial by jury to protect
individual rights, it must be understood that reference is made
to the jury of practice, and not the jury of theory.  Were there
indeed a, real trial by jury,:T  which twelve unbiased men
should decide any case according to their sense of natural justice, in disregard of all law, precedent or authority, such a tribnnal would be more conformed to the principles of our Pevolution, than any judicial regulation ever yet made by nations.
The perplexing and delusive study of law might be, in a great
measure, forborne, and simplicity, uniformity and justice be the
result.  As no decision would be a guide for another, any error
of judgment would affect but one case only, and would not be
perpetuated.  As the practice is, we have been hardly benefited by the change from being a king-ridden to being a judgeridden people.
If the principles of the Revolution have thus failed of practical
results, in those parts of the Union where their operation is
least restricted, and where they are most in unison with the
spirit and habits of the people, how much more complete is their
failure in those States, where, by the prevalence of slavery,
they are utterlyv obliterated! In the domination of a comparatively few slaveholders over ten times as many slaves, and in
their imperative influence over as great a number of nominally
freemen, who, by their poverty and ignorance, are brought into
entire sympathy with the slavemasters, we behold an aristocracy
of the most oppressive and debasing nature, in which no trace
is discernible of the equa! rights of men, which their progenitors, as well as ours, proclaimed to the world; and when we
reflect that this aristocratic state of society has not only thus
overwhelmed every principle of revolutionary freedom within its
own pale, but, by political corruptions, has been enabled to extend its awful pall over other States yet exempt from that tyrannical institution, we perceive at once that our vaunting declaration of the equal rights of man to 1"life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness," has as yet found' no practical establishmnent in this Western empire.
But there is another circumstance which appears to close this
question.  The framers of our government, in their solicitude




11
for legislative independence, not only overlooked the tyrannical
tendency of judicial powers, but the still greater imcompatibility
with liberty, of military establishments.'laving gained their
independence by the supposed necessity of martial operations;
having before them the example, not only of the States of antiquity, but of every modern community revolutionized into
some semblance of republicanism by force of arms; and alarmed
at the disorganizing developments of a new-formed, unsettled
nation, it was natural that they should seek to provide for
national defence and order by a vast military organization.  It
is true, that, in recollection of cases in which nominal Commonwealths have been overthrown by military dictators, they feared
the establishment of a large standing army, and considered the
liberties of the country more safe under the protection of a
general militia force -— a feeling which yet prevails in the
country; but the danger is directly the reverse.  In an iritelligent, vigorous, and  widely-dispersed  nation, sensitively
jealous of their imagined freedom, there need be little fear
that any commander or any army, however powerful, would
be able to overthrow their political institutions by open force.
The only. opportunity conceivable for this purpose was in the
case of Washington, after the Pevolution, who was too patriotic
to avail himself of it; and it is not likely any other man will
ever arise in this land of conflicting parties so generally popular
as to attempt it with success. The government of Great
Britain maintains a large standing army, which in time of peace
is principally employed as a police force; yet no Englishman
has the least anxiety lest the organization of his government
should be changed by military power: the late popular Duke
of Wellington would have attempted it in vain.
The true nature of a military despotism does not consist in
the mere presence. of a military force, however powerful, but
in the principles on which that force is employed: these are
two -  the supposed necessity of preserving order and protecting rights by force, and the supposed moral obligation of
obedience to commanders, without any regard to the righteousness of the command. Any citizen cherishing these principles
as truths, is already a willing slave to: military tyranny, and
may be made an instrument of it whenever called on by his




12
rulers for that service.  When therefore these principles are
confined to the officers and soldiers of a standing army, there is
little danger from them to the rest of the people, as these forces
are restrained from injury to them by the strictness of military
discipline; but when - as by a general militia system - these
principles are diffused through the whole community, every
citizen becomes a tyrant over his brother citizen, when so enjoined by the ca-prices of his government; and the greatest evil
of military despotism - mental slavery - is universally established.  The proposition that free citizens may be relied on
never to submit to political subjection, or to impose it upon
others, is overborne by the imagined obligation of obedience in
military service.
These views are not merely hypothetical.  In many instances, where portions of the militia have been called out to
suppress tumults of the people, they have come with reluctance,
and under a delusive sense of duty: in the most of such cases,
the people have been right, and the government wrong; and in
almost all, the injury inflicted by the military on the rights of
citizens -  even sometimes to the destruction of life - has been
much greater than could reasonably have been expected from
the unrestrained violence of the gatherings they quelled.  It
may be safely laid down as a maxim, that whenever a mob is
too strong to be suppressed by a numerous and well-organized
civil police, the object of that mob is such as ought not to be
put down: it is the natural and never-yielded right of opposing governmental crime.
But it is said that the prevalence of these views would disorganize society; would destroy all government; lead to universal anarchy; expose all rights to violation, or protect them
only by Lynch law. Such language is common in the mouths
of our statesmen and judges, and given forth as self-evident
propositions. They are not, however, self-evident; and, as far
as we know, no shadow of proof of them has ever been attempted. They must go upon the assumption that the greatest
part of the community are rogues and robbers, and are only
restrained by the strong arm of law from general rapine. But
if this were the case, no government could exist here but an absolute monarchy, supported by a standing force. The criminals




of a community should undoubtedly be restrained; but they
are, in every country, and we certainly hope in ours, but a
small portion of the people, and may easily be checked, as far
as is now done, by the ordinary civil police of the government,
No instance can be produced of any great combination, having
in view the abrogation of the government itself by force, or
the destruction of the rights professed to be protected by it.
Whatever forbearance may be shown to illegal combinations, the
laws against single criminals - the only rightful object of government - would remain as strong as ever.
Although the mass of our citizens are blind to this condition
of their country, intelligent men see and confess it; yet even
with these, the language of justification is, "H How can it be
avoided? Where is the use of pointing out evils that are irremediable?  All human institutions are necessarily imperfect;
and the most that can be done, is to bring them as near to perfection as possible: this has been done in the formation of our government: it is the best that wisdom has ever yet devised; and
certainly secures to us a greater measure of freedom and justice than any yet known in the world.  Whatever may be
the rigor of the laws on overt acts, we have still left to us the
freedom of religious worship, of speech, writing, the press, popular assemblies, and social intercourse, untouched by the hand of
government, and enjoyed to a greater extent than in any other
land.  Any change would probably be for the worse.  Why not
be contented with it as it is?"  These representations, often
made, are but partially true. Although our government usually refrains from violation of the rights enumerated, yet in
many cases it fails to protect them; and in many instances,
gives power to tyrannical individuals, who make these violations.
The argument partly confesses, and partly denies, the proposition we maintain, that the principles of the Revolution have not
been realized. It is remarkable that the rights here spoken of
as unassailed, are enjoyed as fully (and even more so,) in the
kingdom from which we separated, as with us; and therefore,
did not spring from the Revolution, nor do they come up to its
principles: they are held sacred by governments which openly
deny the equal rights of man, and practically restrain the
physical freedom and pursuit of happiness in their subjects.




14
The usual assertion that all governments-ours includedare imperfect, is an admission of a partial failure of the attempt
to establish our revolutionary rights. The difference here maintained is, that this failure is complete: but when it is inferred,
that because of this necessary imperfection, and because our
government is in advance of all others yet constructed, no
attempt should be made to bring it nearer to conformity with its
theoretic principles, an argument is employed, which the intelligent men who use it would be ashamed to offer on any other
subject than politics. If a merchant should enter a new business,
on a new scheme, which promised more profit than others; and
should find after some years of trial that he failed to make these
profits; and should perceive that this failure was owing to mismanagement in departing from  his original plan, we think he
would hardly conclude to continue the business in the same
faulty manner, for fear of a loss in reforming it.
The necessary imperfection of human government is readily
acknowledged, and no expectation is entertained that the principles of the Revolution can ever be entirely and effectually
carried out; but that they may be so to every desirable extent,
and may promote the liberty, justice and prosperity of the people to a degree never yet attained, is not disproved by the failure
of our government to fulfil that purpose.  The truth is, that the
experiment has never yet been tried.  The " self-evident'" truths
announced in the Declaration of Independence, and Bills of
Rights of several States, that all men are created equal, endowed with the "' inalienable " rights of "' life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness," were ignored in the very original construction of our several governments, which, with some improvements,
were wholly founded on the basis of the principles of power
maintained by the corrupt governments of other nations.  In
the Declaration, indeed, these rights are subjected to power in the
very sentence in which they are declared; for while in the first
part, they are asserted to be the endowment of the Creator, and
pronounced G" inalienable," in the immediate sequel it is said that
governments derive their power to secure (of course to control,)
them  "6 from the consent of the governed."'  Now as this consent is impossible, and never was, nor ever can be given, the power
assumed to regulate these rights is consequently a usurpation,




without any just authority.  It is plain, that whenever government assumes to secure any right of one man by power, it must
be by the restriction of the natural right of some other man;
and this power has not its origin in the consent of the one thus
restricted; but simply in the necessity of justice which disregards all abstract rights.
We know that this conclusion has been attempted to be evaded
by the allegation, that the resignation of part of the natural
rights of the individual is made in the formation of a Constitution or Government by compact.  The legal maxim, that the
ancestor may bind his successors as well as himself, in regard
to property, is most irrationally extended to moral obligation;
and it is accordingly held, that the compromises made by the
framers of the National and State Constitutions, are obligatory
on the consciences of all citizens now living under them. Thus,
it is said, in the Preamble of the Constitution of Massachusetts -" The body politic is formed by a voluntary association
of individuals: it is a social coml-pact, by which the whole people
covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole
people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good."  A sufficient reply to this would be, that, in point
of fact, no such compact was ever made, either in Massachusetts
or in any other country; and if it is said, that if not personally
by the people themselves, it was by their representatives, - the
plain answers are, that but a small part of the people were
ever represented; that many citizens expressly dissented from
the Constitution; and that such defect of representation or dissent, even by the smallest minority, invalidates the whole contract, as a general one; and that it therefore binds only those
who expressly agreed with their enacting representatives.
But we are aware, that they are not facts, but presumptions,
that are made the basis of political institutions; and it is gravely held, that, although no such compact as is supposed was made
in reality, it is presumed to have been made, as no other foundation can be found for the existing L' body politic. "  Admitting for a moment, that the presumption of a fact shall stand as
good for a premise, as the fact itself, it must be one which is
possible or conceivable: an absurdity cannot be premised.  It
is easy to show, that the alleged compact in question is not only




16
an impossible, but even an inconceivable case.  A compact is an
agreement between two or more parties, by which one party
confers on another a right affecting itself, which that other did
not previously possess; and for such a grant, there must be at
least two parties: there can be no compact of one party only.
Now in the supposed compact by which government is formed,
there are not two, but only one party.  When it said, that "' the
whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with
the whole,' we ask, Who is this "c whole?,"  We understand the
whole, in this case, to be an imagined aggregation of every citizen; and if each citizen gives assent together, they become a
whole; and it is clearly a whole contracting with itself.  If
we say that each citizen gives his consent only as an individual,
then where is the consenting whole, with whom he contracts?
Does the citizen contract as one of the whole, and as an individual
at the same time?  Then again the two supposed parties are
united in the same persons, who transfer no right to any other.
Shall we set aside the nonentity, here called s" the whole," and
say that each individual citizen contracts with each other individual separately? then the contract is plainly made only by
those who become express parties to it, and binds no other individual living at the same time; and not a single person who
should afterwards be born; which would exempt almost all the
the present inhabitants of Massachusetts, who have not sworn to
support the Constitution on entering office. The presumption of
a compact of each and all the citizens is therefore an inconceivable idea.
It is said, however, that this principle of compact standing at
the head of the Constitution of Massachusetts, as its basis, every
person who remains in its territory, submits to its laws, and
avails himself of its protection, thereby gives assent to the government; and if he dislikes it, he is at liberty to retire from political action, and leave the operations of the laws to those who
consider them beneficial; or to remove to another region. Here
is another fallacy: even hypothetically it is not true. Each
man derives his right of judgment and self-protection, not from
his associated fellow-men, but from his Creator; and is by nature entitled to determine for himself, what are his rights, and
to  protect them, as independently of others in the com



17
munity, as they are for themselves: if he submits to the adjudication and protection of government, it is because that government has taken away from him the power of exercising these rights
for himself: he yields merely to power which he cannot resist; and no inference can be drawn, that he does it voluntarily. Practically the proposition is still more untrue. The individual is compelled to pay the taxes and submit to the laws of
government, however unjust he may deem  them: the protection given is oppressive and imperfect. As to removal to another country-the citizen's right of residence in the land where
he was born, as also of a portion of its territory, is the gift of
God, and not of men: and where, then, is the right of other men to
impose on him the alternative of submission to laws to which he
does not assent, or to depart to another country, where he has
no right of residence, and where he would meet equal if not
greater oppressions? The doctrine of government founded on
a consent of the governed, beilig evinced by unavoidable acquiescence in it, is erroneous an(, absurd, as is every principle of
right assumed for it: neither il: assumptions or regulations are
any where conformed to the priaciples of the Revolution.
Has the entire departure from these principles been inevitable?  It cannot be admitted that principles almost self-evidently just and true, in plain accordance with the instructions of divine wisdom, and as plainly conducive to human elevation and
felicity, are incapable of being carried into practical operation.
So far from this, we believe thlt not only most of the evils, but
also the difficulties and perplexities of civil government arise from
disregard of them. It is because these "1 inalienable rights 9" are
alienated to rulers, that power everywhere predominates over
justice.  It is because the right of "c life " is disrespected, that
multitudes are compelled to exposure to martial destruction.  It
is because the right of " liberty "' is so limited, that the constraint of laws and " the rod of the oppressor "' is so keenly felt,
and the dark cloud of slavery obscures one half, and menaces
the other half of our land.  It is because "s the pursuit of happiness" is not fully allowed to men, at their own discretion,
but constantly regulated by the usurpations of government, that
the sources of rational and elevating enjoyment are so poisoned
in our social connections. Political government lays its rude,
3




18
coercive hand on the most refined and most sacred of human
aspirations.
Whenever this inconsistency between our theoretic declarations and our actual laws is admitted, it is not only alleged to
be from necessity, which we deny, but the infringement on
private rights is said to be made for "C public good."  lHere we
have to deal with one of the most extraordinary fallacies of
which political history gives us any account. It is one of the
most striking examples of those 1" time-honored' maxims, not only
baseless, but absurd, which yet have been held and maintained,
in all ages, by the greatest minds, merely for want of definition.
What is meant by "1 public," and what by'" good," in connexion
with each other? By "' good,"' we understand the promotion
of the interest, happiness, or elevation of some intelligent
being: there must therefore be such a being, to be susceptible
of a good. But what being is the " public?   H" Has such a person
or thing ever been seen?  Where does it exist? what is its
shape or substance?  The term' public," is undoubteclly convenient in political discussion, t0 denote supposed combinations
of the majority of individuals; but certainly does not convey
an idea of any real being; anul consequently not any thing
which is capable of any good.'" Public good" is one of those
hackneyed expressions, which are useful in mystifying persons,
who do not care for distinct cornceptions; but which vanish at
the touch of intelligent definition. Unhappily, however, this
phrase has a practical, perverted import, which is not thus
inconceivable.  In effect, it means the interest or power of the
ruling or wealthier classes of society, in disregard of the rights
of the vaster number of the laboring, the poor and the ignorant.
Is this a calumnious observation?  Let any person examine the
statute books in our country, and the reports of adjudged
cases, setting aside those designed to settle private interests in
special transactions, and looking only at those professing or
implying regulation of public concerns; see if he can find one
which does not tend to promote the interests or secure the
power of the ruling or the eminent, at the expense of the
multitude of the depressed. Public good virtually signifies
aristocracy; literally, it signifies nothing.
If such are the effects of the departure from the principles




19
of the Revolution, reproducing the delusions and oppressions of
the transatlantic world, in a minor degree, while legislating in
faithful conformnity to our Constitution; how much greater a
stride has been made toward despotism, by the extension of law
into unauthorized enactments, which legislatures - ever prone
to absorb power, and encroach on private right-have made by
looseness of construction; in which the judiciary - ever leaning
to the side of government -have faithfully imitated and confirmed them. Much of this is seen in our State laws, but
vastly more in those of the United States.  Although by the
Constitution, snch ample powers are granted to the general
government, as to deprive the States of every vestige of
sovereignty; yet the verbal restrictions of these powers are
perpetually overleaped; and the approach is manifest toward
consolidated tyranny; an empire in all but the name.
The practical and pertinent question will now be asked, How
could this have been avoided? How could a government have
been formed mainly on the lasis of the revolutionary rights,
with only occasional and unavoidable imperfection? It must in
candor be supposed that the respected and intelligent framers
of our government did not perceive how they could have
effected this; or they would have done so. At the same time
we cannot avoid charging them with inattention to the subject.
If they had constantly reverted  to the principles of the
Declaration of Independence, in enacting the separate articles
of the Constitution, they could not have so formed them: the
inconsistency would have beer. too glaring.  Could they have
done otherwise? If they had discarded from their: minds all
ideas of the prerogatives of government in the past; and without any light to guide them, but the principles announced in
the Declaration of Independence, could they have constructed
a government mainly on this basis?  This is tlhe question;
and, although premature in the mouths of those who do not
admit the failure of this trial, it can be answered.
Dismissing all the fanciful authorities alleged for the institution of government - the divine right of sovereigns; the
assent of the governed; compact between each individual
and the whole, which was never made; combination for safety,
&C., - the only origin of it in all ages and countries, in fact,




20
has been the sword of the warrior; the only justification of it
in political reasoning, is necessity.  Intelligent essayists tell the
whole truth, and more than the truth, when they say, that the
power of government is necessary to repel foreign encroachment, and prevent unjust injury by one citizen to another.
Of course these purposes cannot be effected without some
infringement of the rights of some individuals; but it is
obvious, that this plea of necessity, in violation of right, ought
never to be allowed any further than the necessity requires.
To provisions for defence and protection, the powers of government should therefore be limited: all other regulations should
be refrained from, or established in conformity to the inalienable
rights of freedom. Should this principle be adopted, infringement on natural right would indeed  be made in a small
degree; but nine tenths of the laws made by our govern.
ments, national and state, misregulating private concerns, could
be dispensed with, their object be better effected in another
way; and the government be as efficient as ever. Nothing
can be more true than the aphorism, that " the people who are
least governed are the best governed;" multiplied legislation
is suicidal in a republic.
But how can private violations of right be prevented, or
disputes between individuals be settled, if power for these
purposes is withheld from government?  As no politicians have
ever yet thought of accomplishing these objects, otherwise than
by the coercive action of government, such a question is to be
expected, and cannot surprise as; but, taught by the instructions of Christianity, it is believed that such ends may be
attained without perpetuation - in all cases - of the agency of
force; and that this agency may be remitted pari passu with
the advance and purification of society, till it shall become even
unnecessary. In the present state of all human communities,
corrupted as they have been by the long continued demoralization of tyranny, force, as employed by governments, is indeed
necessary for the enforcement of justice; but by no means for
its determination.  Government should yet be allowed the
power to prevent crime, even by the uncertain ex-post facto
administration of punishment, if no  better method is discerned; but not to judge of the reality of crime, or the best




21
measures for prevention; still less should it be allowed to
convert, by statutes, into crime, acts which neither enlightened
conscience nor the laws of God have so pronounced.
The determination of these points must indeed rest somewhere: here the principles of the Revolution will guide us.  If
the rights of men there claimed, are, as asserted, inalienable,
they cannot be alienated, all at once, by delegation to governments, and in fact they never have been so delegated; they
must of course remain with individuals, and where collisions of
such rights occur between different parties, the determination
of them  must be by the parties themselves, or their mutually
appointed representatives, in each disputed case. This leads
us directly to the principle of selected reference, or, as it is
called, " Arbitration," and an attentive examination will show,
that this principle is effectually applicable to every case of
contested right that can possibly arise in a civilized community;
and the tyranny of compelled attendance of jurors and witnesses, and the perplexing and ensnaring forms of law, would
by it be dispensed with. To be sure, decisions under this
method would not always be tniform, but they would be more
likely to be just; and uniformity is not attained under the
present usurping system. Trials in this form, also, admit of
compromises, for which our laws make no provision; and
which, in many really dubious cases, are the truest judgment.
The voluminous labyrinth of law, the extent of which is in
itself a great injustice, and its innumerabls evils and oppressions, which citizens of all countries feel and complain of, are
owing to the unhappy mistake made by rulers and jurists, for
ages, that determinations of the respective rights, and all the
perplexing encounters of the social and pecuniary interests of
men can be codified; and under this impression, statutes, and
-in defect of them - precedents, are piled together in a countless array of awfully repulsive restrictions. And is completion of
the system attained, or in prospect? Does not every week's
record of the Courts, present new and intricate questions, and
doubtful or conflicting decisions? On the other hand, there is
in every intelligent and unbiased mind, a distinct, if not
intuitive, sense of the right and the wrong, in every possible
question respectively, when the facts of the case in hand are




22
fully ascertained, which cannot be generalized or reduced to a
uniform  rule, but will in almost all different instances be conformable to abstract or rational justice.  If this is true, it
shows that the most reliable security for the determination of
right, is in the judgment of a plenipotent arbitration, unbound
by authority, uncorrupted by antiquated prejudices, unfettered
by erroneous legislation, unbiased by official station, and
unperplexed by the sophistical maxims of legal training.  Such
tribunals would be as satisfactory as simple; and might supersede the turmoil of partisan-political legislation, except that for
protection or execution; and dismiss the immense records of
laws, decisions and judicial forms to their merited oblivion.
The radical injustice of the actual principles of our governrnent have thus been pointed out, and their entire inconsistency
with those of the Revolution; ani it is believed that we might
safelv rely on the abridgment of legislation, and a constant
resort to a free, plenipotent, and competent arbitration, guided
only by evidence and reason, to restore the suppressed rights of
citizens, and fulfil all the legitimate purposes of government.
But as the establishment of this system would be a new revolution, for which our community is not yet prepared, and cannot
reasonably be expected; without such fundamental change,
specific reforms might be made, in conformity to the principles
of the Revolutiong which might gradually approach such a
change. Examples of special rules, or enactments, in which
these principles are plainly contravened, of which our records
of legislation and judicial decisions are full, might be produced,
and which might be singly and successively reversed.  Allusion has already been made to tie limitations of our system  of
suffrage; the predominance of political sway by judicial precedents; the provisions for the support of slavery; the institution of compulsory military establishments; the extension of
legal authority, by forced constructions; and the interference
of government with private and social concerns, for which it
never could have been instituted; further mention might
be made of the regal maxims, that government cannot be
sued at law by citizens; that it assumes to be a party in criminal actions, thus judging its own cause; and the imposition of
oaths, expressly forbidden by Christ, and accordingly a sin in




23
those who take, those who administer, and those who enact
them; with the addition of many others, perhaps less important, but still grievous: but it is deemed unnecessary.
Should they be arrayed with full comment, our Christian
patriots might then be asked to survey this chaotic mass of
errors, which are idolized as the perfection of human wisdom;
and say, whether there is here no demand for a reformation,
more radical than has hitherto been attempted.
In an earlier part of this article, it was intimated that the
annunciation in the Declaration of Independence, of the equal
and inalienable rights of men, was premature in an age not
prepared for it, and that the time may now have come, when
this principle may be raised from  the grave of prescriptive
policy, in which it had been buried in its infancy, and its features of divine symmetry be again exposed to the view of a
more intelligent age. The forward'" march of mind,"7 and the
rapid transitions of policy which have since occurred in these
States; the breaking up of old opinions, and the searching
analysis of prevalent dogmas, even descending to the foundations of all the social connexions of men, which characterize
the present age, warrant the hope, that the righteous principles
of the Revolution will no longer be neglected: indeed they are
already sounded by the myriad voices of the press, though
their true import is yet but dimly seen. Although none may
expect their speedy recognition and full adoption, yet it is
well now to lay the seeds of that tree of liberty and justice,
which rising in the fostering soil of political agitation, will
hereafter spread  its salutary branches over our extensive
empire. Believing in the constant amelioration of our race,
under divine tuition, no citizen need despair of the future
triumph of principles, in full accordance with celestial revelation, and manifestly tending to the high exaltation, the undeviating justice, the unrestricted freedom, the unbroken peace of
the world. The dogma is not credible, that man is so corrupted
in nature, as to be incapable of disinterested and unbounded
benevolence; and the hope may be cherished, that sentiments
of Christian love may yet break through the mighty bonds of
unprincipled ambition and selfish avarice, and expand their
fragrance through the whole political atmosphere of the earth.




24
The earnest appeal is now made to our gifted statesmen, to
cast from them that vain pseudo-patriotism, which will see no
faults in our growing republic, to awake to its corruptions,
and re-commence the reform the Declaration of Independence promised. Let this reformation be projected in earnest,
and pursued with vigor, and the character of our nation may
be redeemed from the general imputation of insincerity in the
profession of freedom, and dishonesty in the acquisition of
territory, and the pursuit of wealth. Lauded as we every
where are, for intellectual ingenuity and enterprising energy,
when we shall add to these attributes, the reputation of cordial
champions of the universal and inalienable rights of "' life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness," we may then stand proudly forth
as "' a light to lighten the Gentiles," leading them to that happy
consummation announced in the birth-day song of angels, and
daily solicited in the prayer that the Kingdom of the universal
Father may come, and his will be done on earth, as it is done
in heaven.